Several posters over the years have implied that Evolution and Racism are related or that racism is supported by evolution.

The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to the concept of racism. As we learn more, particularly in the field of genetics, it becomes increasingly obvious that there is almost no difference between humans of any kind, and in fact far less difference between humans and apes, or even humans and pond scum, than anyone imagined.

Humans and pond scum are directly related, we both are descended from a common ancestor.

Racism is one of the leftovers from an earlier period when mankind was far more ignorant than today, and in particular from the assumption that religious claims of exclusivity and dominance have any validity.

As we learn more, particularly in the field of genetics, it becomes increasingly obvious that there is almost no difference between humans of any kind, and in fact far less difference between humans and apes, or even humans and pond scum, than anyone imagined than anyone imagined.

Ok, but then we are on the slippery slope. If we are allowed to kill pond scum, which share % of their genes with us, and we are allowed to keep mice as pets which share %, there needs to be a dividing line in a continuum of relatedness where we say "doing X is now unacceptable". And, unless there is something else very obvious we can use to draw the line, we are left in a situtation where we can justify discrimination between organisms based on genes.

However, for a special creationist, there is an immutable division between humans and apes, and humans and pond scum. So, one can use that very obvious (to them) boundary to draw their lines. Evolutionists have no such luxury.

The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to the concept of racism. As we learn more, particularly in the field of genetics, it becomes increasingly obvious that there is almost no difference between humans of any kind, and in fact far less difference between humans and apes, or even humans and pond scum, than anyone imagined.

Another way to view how the ToE is against racism is that all humans that currently exist are equally adapted to their environment. ABE - in general as the sum of a group, not necessarily applicable to down to individual level such as in cases of genetic disease.

Actually, the social science research I am familiar with verifies my personal experience regarding an opposite relationship. Namely that it is fundamentalism, which rejects the ToE, that has the high correlation with authoritarianism and racism. I think this is often shown by some posters here who often 'accidentally' let slip their own views.

Of course going into more detail would be the opposite of this thread and therefore would require its own topic.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

The justification for killing plants and animals for food and keeping mice as pets is not a racial issue.

Not strictly, no. But race is just a sub-species (a division within a species), and evolutionists acknowledge that the human species is just one of the ape - Hominidae - family (division within that family) and the human-sheep division is just another division within the placental mammal infraclass. So why modifying behaviour based on one division allowable (humans and sheep, or humans and other great apes), but modifying your behaviour towards another isn't (between races)?

In other words, why does the phylogenetic difference between a human and a cat allow you to act differently to humans than you do to cats, but if you act even slightly different because of a much smaller (but still real) difference between humans and other humans it become unacceptable?

The creationists have no such problem, because they can claim that cats and humans are totally different kinds of organism, but humans are the same kind. Differences are irrelevant - kind is what matters.

In other words, why does the phylogenetic difference between a human and a cat allow you to act differently to humans than you do to cats, but if you act even slightly different because of a much smaller (but still real) difference between humans and other humans it become unacceptable?

LOL

That's why that is such a silly argument on your part. There is absolutely nothing in the Theory of Evolution that could be used to justify such behavior.

Anyone who thinks they can use the Theory of Evolution to justify racism is simply showing their total ignorance.

Well, evolution being a scientific theory, it can't dictate our ethics. But, it can inform them. It can affect the conclusions of the premises we use to justify our actions.

We may be allowed to neuter a cat because we think cats are less able to reason than we are, or less conscious than we are, or less whatever. Regardless of the justification, without the massive wall between kinds that creationists use, what well-defined boundary is there between Fluffy and the foreign guy down the street, who we also think can't reason as well as we can, or is in some other way less 'entitled' to our niceties?

While evolution may not justify racism (and I never said it did), creationism certainly works better than evolution to hold it back - they can appeal to 'humans, with a soul, as opposed to soulless animals and plants' or 'the kind created in God's image' as definitions of what shouldn't be discriminated against. Modern biological science tells us there is no clear-cut boundary between humans, and there is also no clear-cut boundary between all animals, or all lifeforms.

So, instead of just laughing at me perhaps you should start to tell me WHY I am wrong, so that those who are a little less astute can know why you are laughing at me.

So, instead of just laughing at me perhaps you should start to tell me WHY I am wrong, so that those who are a little less astute can know why you are laughing at me.

Well, since jar is asleep and I'm stuck being awake until my pants dry, I may as well give it a shot.

Racism means distinguishing and discriminating between and amongst people because this given person looks, acts, or has a different historic background than the perpetrator of racism, generally, but not limited to the 'ruling class.' As you should notice, the term racism is limited to the interaction among the human species.

Specie-ism refers to the difference between humans and non-human animals and is usually associated with the agenda of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as meaning that all animals (as opposed to plants, fungi, and bacteria) have equal rights to humans.

Please stop confusing racism with specie-ism, which is off topic in this thread. If you would like to introduce a PNT as to why specie-ism is either immoral or moral, please feel free to do so. However you may want to remember that the founders of PETA are hypocrites as they have personally benefited from animal research and that 2/3 of the animals they 'rescue' are euthanized, or in the vernacular, killed.

Edited by anglagard, : clarity of choice

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Creationists don't believe that all men are special and equal. They believe that they are the ones that God likes and the other people are the ones that God hates.

Oh, I know. But it's not a belief in special creation that does that, it's their belief in all the other parts of the Bible, plus a little extra innate prejudice.

Creationism protects against racism, I think, but the rest of their funny religious beliefs just fuel it. It's like mixing 10 parts ethanol with 1 part water and throwing it on a fire - the creationism part helps, but the rest doesn't.

Please stop confusing racism with specie-ism, which is off topic in this thread.

It's not off topic at all. As jar pointed out in his OP, all life is related. And, all races are related. It's just a matter of degree, hence my slippery slope argument. Why shouldn't I be allowed to talk about the thick end of the wedge in a thread on the thin edge? It's like prohibiting me from talking about camels in a thread on camel noses.

And, as I pointed out, the term race (as Darwin used it), simply means sub-species or grouping within a species.

anglagard writes:

If you would like to introduce a PNT as to why specie-ism is either immoral or moral, please feel free to do so.

But I don't really care about whether it is or it isn't. All I want to introduce is the fact that specie-ism is considered fairly acceptable behaviour, and the theory of evolution, by stating the relationship between all organisms, leads us to either reject specie-ism or to accept racism - only drawing a sharp line on the slope, like creationists do, can prevent this.

I've got to defend Doddy's position here. He's not arguing for racism, or arguing against species-ism. He's just pointing out something that you and anglagard should be well aware of:

A scientific theory doesn't give us a guide to ethics.

It tells us what is the case, not what we ought to do. If the theory of evolution told us that there were quite distinct differences between the human races (rather than the opposite), would that justify us in being racist? I hope not. I hope that we would make our ethical judgement based on other factors, and still argue against racism. So how can it provide a guide in the opposite direction?

We are constantly telling creationists here that the ToE doesn't say anything about the existence of God or how we should behave (i.e. accepting the ToE doesn't mean you have to be an atheist or a nihilist), so how can it suddenly have ethical meaning when we want to defend a favourite ethical belief?

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang